Kids are watching too much TV; if they’re under two, any TV is too much

Children are watching more TV and reading less than they used to, according to …

Kids today watch a lot of TV. That's the most immediate take-home message from a new report published by the children's advocacy organization Common Sense Media. Despite repeated warnings from pediatricians that young children and TV shouldn't mix, the report, Zero to Eight: Children's Media Use in America, finds that two-thirds of children aged eight and under watch TV at least once a day, typically watching for an hour-and-three-quarters. By comparison, they spend just under half an hour reading or being read to.

Back in 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics published survey data on media consumption by young children that made for scary reading. Common Sense Media's report builds on that work, and where the data is comparable, it shows that we're making progress, but often not in the right direction.

TV is the big winner when it comes to kids' media consumption. Among five- to eight-year-olds, the heaviest media consumers, TV accounted for 1:57 of their 2:50 total screen time, and 72 percent watched TV daily. Computers and video games each got 24 minutes of their attention, with about five minutes of cell phone/iPod/iPad thrown in for good measure.

Common Sense Media's report also highlighted the socioeconomic disparities in media consumption and access among young children. African-American children spent more time watching TV, reading, and playing video games than either white or hispanic children. As family income and education levels increase, time spent consuming media decreases, with the bulk of that decrease coming from less time spent watching TV, which wasn't the case in the 2005 study.

Interestingly, there was no effect of family income or parental education level on the amount of time kids spent reading or being read to, although there was a racial effect, with African-American children reading the most (41 minutes a day), followed by white (28 minutes a day) and hispanic (25 minutes a day) children. The reading trend across time is a little depressing; compared to studies in 2003 and 2005, young children now spend 25 percent less time reading each day.

To my mind, the most critical data involves children aged two and younger. There's now plenty of evidence that these kids should not spend any time at all watching TV. That message isn't reaching parents, however; 66 percent of children under two have watched TV, even though their brains can't actually process the information meaningfully. Although the numbers of daily TV viewers aged two and under has kept constant between 2005 and 2011, the amount of time they spend in front of the box has risen, from just over an hour to an hour and half. The number of infants and toddlers with TVs in their rooms has jumped too, from 19 percent to 29 percent.

Sadly I don't have any great ideas about how to reduce this. I'm aware that for many time-strapped parents, plunking junior down in front of the screen may provide much needed respite, but the jury is back in on this one, and it's pretty clear that junior isn't being done any favors in the process.

I would certainly agree that children under 1 year shouldn't be watching TV, but I know first hand that at least some children are totally capable of understanding what is going on the TV. My daughter grew up watching a lot of "Signing Time!" and quickly learned sign language. She was signing at the age of 14 months long before she was speaking.

I recognize there is a lot of cruft out there that has little/no educational value but merely puts the child into a trance of sorts (I'm looking at you Baby Einstein).

I also wonder if using an iPad with educational apps has a net positive effect. My children don't even care about the TV if they have an opportunity to use the iPad.

"the socioeconomic disparities in media consumption and access among young children. African-American children spent more time watching TV, reading, and playing video games than either white or hispanic children. As family income and education levels increase, time spent consuming media decreases"

You heard it here first, folks. If you're black, it is synonymous with being poor.

Sadly I don't have any great ideas about how to reduce this. I'm aware that for many time-strapped parents, plunking junior down in front of the screen may provide much needed respite, but the jury is back in on this one, and it's pretty clear that junior isn't being done any favors in the process.

The easy way is to just get rid of the TV. That'll reduce it. And kids will find other ways to stay entertained–playing etc.

Some of those numbers are amazingly high! 1:45/day? That's insane! Our kids get to watch a movie with us on Friday nights, but don't really ever watch anything else. With one of them, it was really apparent how much TV turned her into a zombie and quickly became the only thing she wanted to do. We eliminated TV almost entirely because of what it did to her.

That said, the TV is pretty helpful at getting the parents some "time" together. It's a noble cause (or something).

"the socioeconomic disparities in media consumption and access among young children. African-American children spent more time watching TV, reading, and playing video games than either white or hispanic children. As family income and education levels increase, time spent consuming media decreases"

You heard it here first, folks. If you're black, it is synonymous with being poor.

Plunking a kid in front of a TV isn't really that much easier than plunking them down in the yard. Sure there's weather to consider, fencing/safety, and some people don't have yards--but the point is kids really can be happy with a stick and a ball. Or a book, or legos, or whatever.

TV is nothing more than the easiest possible choice among a host of still-easy choices. It allows today's overly paranoid/protective parent to keep tabs on their kids more easily, and it allows parents who watch too much TV not to feel hypocritical by saying no to TV for their kids. Or parents who can't say no to their kids at all.

"the socioeconomic disparities in media consumption and access among young children. African-American children spent more time watching TV, reading, and playing video games than either white or hispanic children. As family income and education levels increase, time spent consuming media decreases"

You heard it here first, folks. If you're black, it is synonymous with being poor.

Oh, and it's not like you didn't quote the next sentence which begins "As family income and education levels..."

A)Socioeconomic disparities exist when it comes to children watching televisionB)Black children watch more television than white or Hispanic children. Not poor children watch more television than rich children, black children watch more television than white or Hispanic children.

Comparing time watching TV to time reading seems somewhat disingenuous. It takes certain personality types to find reading enjoyable. If they're not watching TV those same kids would probably have several things on their "want to do" list before reading even enters into the picture. It's not exactly a binary system.

I don't really give a crap. I will do anything to keep my one year old happy. Reading to him entertains him for 10 minutes, shape sorting entertains him for 15 minutes, and watching In The Night Garden can manage a whole 20. Not to mention that they've never managed to prove that there's anything actually harmful in toddlers watching a bit of telly - only that it's not beneficial. Ha! It's beneficial to my sanity.

Besides, he's one. He'll pick up a book and chew a few pages up while the tv is on.

Comparing time watching TV to time reading seems somewhat disingenuous. It takes certain personality types to find reading enjoyable. If they're not watching TV those same kids would probably have several things on their "want to do" list before reading even enters into the picture. It's not exactly a binary system.

Reading is good for kids, providing a variety of benefits. It's something all kids need to do, regardless of where it ranks on their list of wants. It's up to the parent to make this more of a want (and this really isn't that hard - when they're little, kids want to be like their parents).

Comparing time watching TV to time reading seems somewhat disingenuous. It takes certain personality types to find reading enjoyable. If they're not watching TV those same kids would probably have several things on their "want to do" list before reading even enters into the picture. It's not exactly a binary system.

Reading is good for kids, providing a variety of benefits. It's something all kids need to do, regardless of where it ranks on their list of wants. It's up to the parent to make this more of a want (and this really isn't that hard - when they're little, kids want to be like their parents).

And once they get peers (which the 5 to 8 year olds that most of this story is actually about actually do), all of that just poofs away if they're not of the personality type that genuinely enjoys it. Yes, it's beneficial. But it's still not a binary choice like the study is making it out to be by using it as a comparison metric.

It is unrealistic to expect that a child will never watch TV or that TV ALWAYS replaces something better. To think that is to not have a child.

For example, let's say you have to take a shower and you have a toddler (2 ish) who you need to keep out of trouble at the same time. How do you accomplish this miracle? Read to him? Bring him into the bathroom with you (not worried about nudity?) and watch him tear off all of the toilet paper? Maybe put stuff from the trashcan in the sink?

What if you have to do routine things that aren't very kid friendly (say, going up and down the stairs into the basement in order to laundry)? Sure, tell him to read a book. You have picture books and blocks and little red balls. 2 year olds don't listen very well, and he goes back to writing on the wall. So you take his crayons away. He starts feeding legos to the dog. You tell him not to, and he says "sorry, daddy". Then he tears one of the pages out of his book by accident. Or throws the couch cushions onto the floor. Or cries for no reason whatsoever. Or pours his milk onto your cell phone. (Ad nauseum.)

I just wanna know if it's better or worse to hand a kid an iPad. I've seen dramatic improvements in our 3 y.o. kids eye/hand coordination from Tozzle - a shape app (as well as knowledge of a bunch of "stuff" from flash card apps).

I know our kids watch too much TV. They're way too close to the average for my own comfort. However, my wife entertaining those twins 12 hours daily just ain't gonna happen. So yeah, they end up watching NickJr or something Disney-esque, or playing with an iOS device probably once or twice a day while she showers or the like.

But yeah, between the two of us, they're reading with us 45-60 minutes a day.

CSM aren't actually as bad as you'd probably imagine. Their movie and game database is a pretty good tools for parents/gift givers to figure out if something is appropriate for their kids or nephew/niece. They probably fall more on the 'won't somebody think of the children' side than my own political/social view, but at least they're giving adults info about what's in media, which my family appreciates.

More OT, I'd be interested to see media consumption split out by number of siblings in the family. Our youngest kid watches more than the oldest one ever did because the oldest now gets to watch a cartoon or something after school some days, and the younger siblings are just around so usually get drawn to it unless they're playing in their rooms.

Also I think TV can be an acceptable temporary babysitter for the one year olds. It's sure better than putting them in a playpen to cry while mom gets a shower, or coming back to find out they've pulled all the books off the bookshelves and emptied out all the drawers again.

I’m with Blue Adept on this. These folks are, if any thing, creating problems by instilling fear of not measuring up to some infeasible ideal. Kids are a hellva lot more durable than we give them credit for. I read to them, I encourage them to read and play with toys and other things. But we also have hundreds of hours of video on DVD that they can go to. Also now Netflix (although it is problematic since the 7-year old seems to be able to ferret out shows like Happy Tree Friends and South Park, “but they are funny, Dad!").

Good Enough Parent is good enough.

Quote:

...Bring him into the bathroom with you (not worried about nudity?)….

If I was I’d always wear clothes around the rest of the house.

Quote:

...and watch him tear off all of the toilet paper? Maybe put stuff from the trashcan in the sink?

CSM aren't actually as bad as you'd probably imagine. Their movie and game database is a pretty good tools for parents/gift givers to figure out if something is appropriate for their kids or nephew/niece. They probably fall more on the 'won't somebody think of the children' side than my own political/social view, but at least they're giving adults info about what's in media, which my family appreciates.

Makes sense, you have so many kids being born with ADD and Autism. This whole epidemic has been growing ever since cable TV has been making large inroads in the home coupled with parents being to busy to interact with thier kids while they work long hours to make those leased BMW/Hummer payments and mortgage payments on that 4 bedroom zero lot McMansion.

America has lost it's moral compass. At this rate in 40 years we will end up with a nation full of half wits and imbeciles.

I’m with Blue Adept on this. These folks are, if any thing, creating problems by instilling fear of not measuring up to some infeasible ideal. Kids are a hellva lot more durable than we give them credit for.

Actually, if you read the report, CSM don't actually say if media consumption is bad or good for kids, they're just presenting their research on how much time kids from different socioeconomic backgrounds use different kinds of media (TV, video games, ipads etc.)

It's actually the Ars writer who appears to be setting up the 'infeasable ideal'

Jonathan M. Gitlin wrote:

To my mind, the most critical data involves children aged two and younger. There's now plenty of evidence that these kids should not spend any time at all watching TV.

I’m with Blue Adept on this. These folks are, if any thing, creating problems by instilling fear of not measuring up to some infeasible ideal. Kids are a hellva lot more durable than we give them credit for.

Actually, if you read the report, CSM don't actually say if media consumption is bad or good for kids, they're just presenting their research on how much time kids from different socioeconomic backgrounds use different kinds of media (TV, video games, ipads etc.)

It's actually the Ars writer who appears to be setting up the 'infeasable ideal'

Jonathan M. Gitlin wrote:

To my mind, the most critical data involves children aged two and younger. There's now plenty of evidence that these kids should not spend any time at all watching TV.

No, it's actually the American Academy of Pediatrics who say children under two shouldn't watch any TV.

Makes sense, you have so many kids being born with ADD and Autism. This whole epidemic has been growing ever since cable TV has been making large inroads in the home coupled with parents being to busy to interact with thier kids while they work long hours to make those leased BMW/Hummer payments and mortgage payments on that 4 bedroom zero lot McMansion.

America has lost it's moral compass. At this rate in 40 years we will end up with a nation full of half wits and imbeciles.

My 6th Grade, straight A autistic 9-year old that learned the basic phonics of the entire alphabet via Leap Frog Letter Factory and started sounding out written words by his 2nd birthday thinks you can suck it.

EDIT: Also, our “McMansion" has a sizable yard and it’s an Infiniti, not a BWM.

Sorry but all this sounds like bullshit to me (this and the linked "study"). We could make a study to proof the contrary of such a feeble conclusion ("it isn't beneficial").

I'm sick and tired of all this TV trashing from so called "scientists" and "intelectuals". TV is not good or bad per se. It's what you watch on TV, what you choose to watch, what you enjoy, that makes a difference. If you learn things on TV it's just as good as any other vehicle for learning. And you can learn a lot by just watching TV series; I'm not even talking documentaries here.

This prejudice has been going on for ages. The "evil" of TV has never been proved. It's all just snobbish propaganda.

Also I think TV can be an acceptable temporary babysitter for the one year olds. It's sure better than putting them in a playpen to cry while mom gets a shower, or coming back to find out they've pulled all the books off the bookshelves and emptied out all the drawers again.

Have you spent much time around one-year-olds? Even if they're crying in a playpen, they're learning to self-soothe or "deal with it". Once they're able to calm down when left alone, they start learning about physics. Seriously. Seeing infants in front of a TV... they just look like zombies. It's kind of scary.

Regardless, a few years ago I read Born To Buy by Juliet Schor and there was a table in it with historical data from a study by Hofferth and Sandberg that showed TV time decreasing a lot for kids through the 80s and 90s, except for the under two range. It also showed reading and outdoor time increasing during that period. Kind of contrary to common wisdom. I know a lot of that TV time has been replaced by video game and Internet time, but the increase in active time (due to more organized sports) and reading (due to ?) was interesting. I can't find the specific table online, but there are lots of [url=http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Hofferth+and+Sandberg+televisionarticles that reference their work[/url].

My parents never even owned a television until I reached the age of six. Somehow they managed to cope with raising us without television. I have no problem with parents allowing children to watch carefully selecting educational material, but I've seen parents plonk kids under two down to watch Oprah or those advertising shows. That's not responsible parenting, that's just laziness.

Sorry but all this sounds like bullshit to me (this and the linked "study"). We could make a study to proof the contrary of such a feeble conclusion ("it isn't beneficial").

I agree. From the minute we are born we begin to die, which also isn't "beneficial" to anyone, including those under 8. Now just try and tell me that Sesame Street, Mister Rogers and other children's programming that many of us probably fondly remember actually damaged us. (Hell, I cried openly when Fred Rogers died, and I was 26 years old!) No, I think I'll continue to let my little ones watch TV as a reward for good behavior and sometimes just to get them to STFU.

I know Ars sometimes has a left-leaning (read: bleeding heart) slant but for crap like this to appear on the front page as though it's fact is insulting. At best, this study and the discussion therein should reside in the Soap Box, but I would rather it was ignored as a senseless scare tactic...

I'm certainly with Tyler and Jonathon on this topic. My experience is that you can easily leave your kids, and they will eventually find something to do. And that something -- even if they complain (over 2 years old obviously) -- will be better than the tube.

The hardest part is getting past the complaints, or cries to be entertained. However, I found it was a temporary thing. If you train your kids that you're not a constant entertainment machine, and the TV is not an option, they eventually get over it, and stop expecting it. My kids get up earlier than both of us many mornings and know how to pick up a book, read, draw, play with lego etc... They also know I will not get up and entertain them.

We save TV time as a special treats. We allow it very judiciously (limited time on weekend evenings only) and it is my bribery tool. Good behaviour gets TV.

I would certainly agree that children under 1 year shouldn't be watching TV, but I know first hand that at least some children are totally capable of understanding what is going on the TV. My daughter grew up watching a lot of "Signing Time!" and quickly learned sign language. She was signing at the age of 14 months long before she was speaking.

I agree completely. My 15 month old definitely knows what is going on when he watches Sesame Street. He mimics behavior, hums along with the songs, says "Elmo" and "Abby" when they appear on screen (or on food labels, toys, etc...damn marketing!) and says (and signs) "more" when he wants to watch a segment or more often a song again.

Like most parents, I'd like to think my son is a genius. But I know better. I need to read up on their methodology because the anecdotal evidence at my disposal leads me to believe kids see much, much more than a glowing box when they see a TV, even well below 2 years old. Or our kids are way ahead of schedule.

Sorry but all this sounds like bullshit to me (this and the linked "study"). We could make a study to proof the contrary of such a feeble conclusion ("it isn't beneficial").

I'm sick and tired of all this TV trashing from so called "scientists" and "intelectuals". TV is not good or bad per se. It's what you watch on TV, what you choose to watch, what you enjoy, that makes a difference. If you learn things on TV it's just as good as any other vehicle for learning. And you can learn a lot by just watching TV series; I'm not even talking documentaries here.

This prejudice has been going on for ages. The "evil" of TV has never been proved. It's all just snobbish propaganda.

So it "sounds" like bullshit? Why? Because some "intellectual"/"scientist" comes to a conclusion that is contrary to your beliefs and practices?

I don't disagree with your conclusions regarding TV being as beneficial as you want to make it. And I actually disagree with the conclusions of this study based on my own observations (though I could be convinced by more evidence). But your reasoning here is the laziest, most anti-intellectual bunch of crap you could possibly come up with. You are focused on the messenger, not the message, on your preconceived biased of people who pursue scientific understanding for a living and not on the science they produce.

"Sounds" like bullshit? I bet the idea of moving pictures on a screen sounded like bullshit to a lot of people at one time. Science has a way of proving people who are disinterested in facts, reason and understanding very, very wrong.